terrorism 1, democracy 0
The conventional wisdom on the Spain attacks and subsequent election surprise is that Al Q'aeda won its first election. I agree with this analysis completely. Al Q'aeda carried out a bombing in Spain just days before a national election effectively reversing the expected outcome. The Spanish people assumed that their government's support for the war in Iraq and the War on Terror made them a target for Al Q'aeda. So what do they do? Elect a party that will pull its troops out of Iraq and reduce involvement in War on Terror.
Let me list the ways in which this was stupid (from the perspective of Spanish self-interest): 1) It is possible that in the short run, Spain is less an immediate target if they are less involved in the War, but in the long run, Al Q'aeda hates Spain as much as the US and will certainly include Spain in future attacks. 2) The War on Terror will not go away because Spain pulls out. It will just become harder for those states still fighting it. Tying this with point #1, Spain is now counting on other countries, with less resources, to protect it from terrorism.
From the perspective of international security, the Spanish election was terrible in more important ways: 1) The War on Terror will not go away because Spain pulls out. It will just become harder for those states still fighting it without Spain's help. 2) Spain's "appeasement" sends the wrong signals to Al Q'aeda, which now thinks it can change state policy in its favor by bombing a country right before national elections. Say goodbye to the days of terrorism just for the sake of terror and say hello to terrorism as calculated political strategy. You now have to fully expect Al Q'aeda to carry out bombings in every major "Western" country in the week before its national elections. If more states respond like Spain did, we can expect a major change in the global political situation.
As my colleague D.F. Cohen pointed out, America must expect that there will be a terrorist attack on November 1. This could have significant political implications. A bombing would, no doubt, be politically advantageous to Bush. In times of terror, people want stability. They want what they know and that is Bush. They don't want to take a gamble on a "whimpy" Democrat. It is, therefore, necessary that Kerry go into the election expecting there will be an attack on November 1 and with a plan for how to show the country he can deal with it. He should have his cabinet announced, detailed plans for what he will do to respond to an attack, a clear foreign policy and a specific homeland security strategy. Only if he can show the American people that he will be able to keep the country safe and respond appropriately to an attack will he have a chance of being elected.
Let me list the ways in which this was stupid (from the perspective of Spanish self-interest): 1) It is possible that in the short run, Spain is less an immediate target if they are less involved in the War, but in the long run, Al Q'aeda hates Spain as much as the US and will certainly include Spain in future attacks. 2) The War on Terror will not go away because Spain pulls out. It will just become harder for those states still fighting it. Tying this with point #1, Spain is now counting on other countries, with less resources, to protect it from terrorism.
From the perspective of international security, the Spanish election was terrible in more important ways: 1) The War on Terror will not go away because Spain pulls out. It will just become harder for those states still fighting it without Spain's help. 2) Spain's "appeasement" sends the wrong signals to Al Q'aeda, which now thinks it can change state policy in its favor by bombing a country right before national elections. Say goodbye to the days of terrorism just for the sake of terror and say hello to terrorism as calculated political strategy. You now have to fully expect Al Q'aeda to carry out bombings in every major "Western" country in the week before its national elections. If more states respond like Spain did, we can expect a major change in the global political situation.
As my colleague D.F. Cohen pointed out, America must expect that there will be a terrorist attack on November 1. This could have significant political implications. A bombing would, no doubt, be politically advantageous to Bush. In times of terror, people want stability. They want what they know and that is Bush. They don't want to take a gamble on a "whimpy" Democrat. It is, therefore, necessary that Kerry go into the election expecting there will be an attack on November 1 and with a plan for how to show the country he can deal with it. He should have his cabinet announced, detailed plans for what he will do to respond to an attack, a clear foreign policy and a specific homeland security strategy. Only if he can show the American people that he will be able to keep the country safe and respond appropriately to an attack will he have a chance of being elected.
posted by Marc at 5:04:00 PM
<< Home